List Jira board sprints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries little extra burden, but it adds nothing new: no pagination behavior, no default page size, no maxResults cap of 100, no note that an empty result is possible. The state-filter sentence restates schema information rather than disclosing behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. It is efficient but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by tight editing of necessary content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage of return shape, so the description should say what comes back (sprint ids, names, dates) and how pages work. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to plan pagination or know what it can do with the returned sprint objects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: boardId being required, startAt pagination, and maxResults (default 50, maximum 100) are all undocumented. The only parameter touched is state, whose three values are already enumerated in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List sprints for a Jira Software board'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from jira_list_boards or jira_search_issues. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is that state filtering is optional; there is no statement of when to use this versus jira_list_boards or jira_search_issues, and no prerequisites such as the board needing to be a Scrum board. Usage is implied from the name only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.